Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Guv Bob]

"gregz" <zekor@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1081667794358457131.265554zekor-comcast.net@news.eternal-september.org...

"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote:
"gregz" <zekor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1064846718358309953.000333zekor-comcast.net@news.eternal-september.org...
"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote:
"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:_8ednfsicqU02RvSnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
I know this sounds stupid........ but I can't find this thing to save my life.

When I turn the ignition 'on' there is clearly a solenoid chattering in
the middle of the engine, between the engine and firewall. Best I can
tell it's coming from about 6-12 inches down from the top of the engine.
Normally I can use a tube to find these things but this time can't locate the sucker.

A problem I have this time is I'm just learning this car and can't find
any diagrams showing solenoids. Haynes and Chiltons aren't much help this time.

I know it's not coming from near the starter solenoid. Anyone know what
other solenoids would be in that area?

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Thanks in advance.

Bob

=> > Found it - the idle speed stepper motor was chattering. Had to drill
out 3 screws to get it apart. Cleaned it off and seems to work but not
sure. The shop manual says to apply 6vdc to some of the connector pins
and see if it if moves or vibrates. I can barely feel it move every time
I hit a pin with 6v, but no vibration or continuous movement. Same when
terminals swithed. Does this right? I'm guessing that one 6v pulse from
the control unit causes one step in the motor - can't find that out
anywhere and the Mitsubishi place here won't say anything except "bring
it in and we'll test everything for $150".

It would also be nice to know how many steps there are in the motor. No
info from anywhere I could find about this.

I checked one on truck by operating off engine still connected. Just see if
it has resistance on all leads, assuming the same ohms. Lubricate.

Greg

Thanks Greg. Coil resistance is 30 ohms, which is within spec. I need a
refresher on stepper motors..... Does it turn once step with each 6v pulse?

That's what happens, but voltage or ground occurs on all leads, not open.

Greg

OK, after spending Sat & Sun under the hood, I'm officially a shade tree semi-expert of some of this stuff.

I cleaned and lubricated and shoved as many parts around as I could. Got the stepper motor back running again. Fixed some vacuum leaks, loose electrical connectors. Checked every sensor in the book and all were OK.

Engine starts up fine and runs a lot better, but still has a miss. Will start again next weekend.

 

[Guv Bob]

"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote in message news:8ZSdnfKaCbu1HS3SnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
"gregz" <zekor@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1081667794358457131.265554zekor-comcast.net@news.eternal-september.org...

"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote:
"gregz" <zekor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1064846718358309953.000333zekor-comcast.net@news.eternal-september.org...
"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote:
"Guv Bob" <guvbob2003@yahooooooooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:_8ednfsicqU02RvSnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
I know this sounds stupid........ but I can't find this thing to save my life.

When I turn the ignition 'on' there is clearly a solenoid chattering in
the middle of the engine, between the engine and firewall. Best I can
tell it's coming from about 6-12 inches down from the top of the engine.
Normally I can use a tube to find these things but this time can't locate the sucker.

A problem I have this time is I'm just learning this car and can't find
any diagrams showing solenoids. Haynes and Chiltons aren't much help this time.

I know it's not coming from near the starter solenoid. Anyone know what
other solenoids would be in that area?

1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Thanks in advance.

Bob

=> > Found it - the idle speed stepper motor was chattering. Had to drill
out 3 screws to get it apart. Cleaned it off and seems to work but not
sure. The shop manual says to apply 6vdc to some of the connector pins
and see if it if moves or vibrates. I can barely feel it move every time
I hit a pin with 6v, but no vibration or continuous movement. Same when
terminals swithed. Does this right? I'm guessing that one 6v pulse from
the control unit causes one step in the motor - can't find that out
anywhere and the Mitsubishi place here won't say anything except "bring
it in and we'll test everything for $150".

It would also be nice to know how many steps there are in the motor. No
info from anywhere I could find about this.

I checked one on truck by operating off engine still connected. Just see if
it has resistance on all leads, assuming the same ohms. Lubricate.

Greg

Thanks Greg. Coil resistance is 30 ohms, which is within spec. I need a
refresher on stepper motors..... Does it turn once step with each 6v pulse?

That's what happens, but voltage or ground occurs on all leads, not open.

Greg

OK, after spending Sat & Sun under the hood, I'm officially a shade tree semi-expert of some of this stuff.

I cleaned and lubricated and shoved as many parts around as I could. Got the stepper motor back running again. Fixed some vacuum leaks, loose electrical connectors. Checked every sensor in the book and all were OK.

Engine starts up fine and runs a lot better, but still has a miss. Will start again next weekend.

==
Next weekend update....

Took the ECU apart and saw corrosion around 2 capacitors. Scrubbed the board and other board connections looked OK. Replaced the caps with same only 105 deg instead of 85 deg. All symptoms gone at engine cold start. Fine when hot, except when in neutral idle speed cycles between 1300 & 1500 rpm with about 1/2-second cycle time. This is only when up to temp.

TS guides say that's likely in the intake air flow -- mass air flow temp, press or flow sensors, idle speed air sensor, motor, etc.

I'm so jazzed that the main problems are solved that I'm going to call it a day and go have a BURGER!! LOL!!!

Bob

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:21:29 -0500, the renowned Jon Elson
<elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:


Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer" were pretty
amusing. Talk about turning a bug into a feature.
Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

Not many, if any, I think. I think the HV rectifier and horizontal
output stages were still served by tubes fairly late, but those sets
were mostly "transistorized", I think. Cross-posted to
sci.electronics.repair- I'm sure someone remembers the whole range, if
MT here doesn't.

I'm not sure how relevant that is today.

Jon

Goes to show how bad reputation can follow you around, even after the
responsible designers and managers are long dead or retired. There's
some justification for it too, as corporate culture has momentum.

Quasar was sold to Matsushita (which most people in the world know
from their brands such as Panasonic and National) in 1974!



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer"
were pretty amusing. Talk about turning a bug into a feature.

Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

The "Quasar" models were transistor sets (circa 1964, I believe). I remember
a trade journal remarking that Motorola had gotten all-transistor color TV
to market two years before it was anticipated.

The "works in a drawer" were intended to simplify service. The technician
simply swapped boards (assuming the problem wasn't something not on the
boards). Motorola's goal was to keep track of what failed, and gradually
improve the boards' reliability.

Of course, a system of individual boards is inherently more-expensive than
"works on A board", not to mention the need to standardize signal levels and
power voltages. It was economically doomed from the start. But it was a good
idea.

The proof of this is that we now repair equipment the same way -- we simply
replace "everything", either by tossing out the single over-populated
circuit board, or the product altogether.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:19:34 -0700, the renowned "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer"
were pretty amusing. Talk about turning a bug into a feature.

Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

The "Quasar" models were transistor sets (circa 1964, I believe). I remember
a trade journal remarking that Motorola had gotten all-transistor color TV
to market two years before it was anticipated.

The "works in a drawer" were intended to simplify service. The technician
simply swapped boards (assuming the problem wasn't something not on the
boards). Motorola's goal was to keep track of what failed, and gradually
improve the boards' reliability.

Of course, a system of individual boards is inherently more-expensive than
"works on A board", not to mention the need to standardize signal levels and
power voltages. It was economically doomed from the start. But it was a good
idea.

The proof of this is that we now repair equipment the same way -- we simply
replace "everything", either by tossing out the single over-populated
circuit board, or the product altogether.

Most industrial products (and automotive, and computer, and appliance)
are still repaired like the Quasar sets- replacement at the module
level, followed by rebuilding (maybe) or discarding (often) the bad
module.

We don't generally replace the whole product except on low end and on
TVs- we swap out a power supply, an LCD screen or keyboard, a dying
lithium battery or a refrigerator thermostat.

With transistorized (and especially IC) TVs, they became so reliable
that adding money to simplify repairs became a liability. Most of us
have dumped perfectly working 20+ year old Sony etc. TVs who's only
offense was to be become out of fashion and unattractive compared to
their newer bretherin.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:47:47 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Not many, if any, I think. I think the HV rectifier and horizontal
output stages were still served by tubes fairly late, but those sets
were mostly "transistorized", I think. Cross-posted to
sci.electronics.repair- I'm sure someone remembers the whole range, if
MT here doesn't.

Oh yes, I remember those nightmares. The Quasar was all transistor
except for the CRT. The HOT was a transistor.
<http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/675639cb67609e5d7fbb84213fbd31f8_1M.png>
<http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19680317&id=BdgvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qDEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4320,2022192>
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/200739657009>
<http://photobucket.com/images/Motorola%20Works%20in%20a%20Drawer/>
<http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19671120&id=EXtIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JxEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6696,4321696>

"The works in the drawer" or "The junk in the trunk"?

The problem was not so much that the design was marginal, convergence
was hell, the connectors didn't quite work, or the boards would blow
up if inserted with the power turn on. There were also multiple
versions and mutations, some of which were mututally incompatible.
Despite the clever construction, it was difficult to probe some of the
boards. There were allegedly extender cards, but we never were able
to obtain any.

The problem was that Motorola was trying to follow the RCA example of
forcing the independent service shops out of business by controlling
their access to parts. At first, one had to be "authorized" which
simply meant going through an ordeal process and purchasing an
unreasonable amount of spare parts. The problem was that many shops
were cannibalizing old TV's for parts, or using non-factory
replacements. So, Motorola figured that they could eliminate the
practice by only selling board level replacements. Of course,
Motorola would also control refurbished boards and demanded all
defective board be returned for repair. I don't recall exactly, but
we also had to report our inventory of replacement Quasar boards to
Motorola. In California at the time, the "fair trade" laws were fully
functional, allowing Motorola to set a MINIMUM price for selling
replacement boards. Nobody thought to clone the cards at the time.

Nothing worked as planned. At the time all of the repairs we did were
under warranty, which were flat rate, and rarely made a profit. Only
out of warranty repairs made money. Motorola would seperately handle
warranty and out of warranty board replacements, charging different
amounts for each. Their out of warrany charges were sufficient that
the shop didn't make any money and that the customers had a bad case
of sticker shock. Motorola hyped the Quasar as somehow reducing
repair costs, but that didn't last long.

Note that one of the above advertisement suggest that it could be
fixed in the home and would not require a trip to the shop. That was
true because the chassis and the receiver were in seperate sections of
the cabinet, and the interconnecting cables were nailed to the
cabinet. This meant the entire cabinet had to go into the shop for
repair. It also meant that all field repairs required two trips to
the home, as none of the vans carried a full collection of boards and
their multiple mutations.

We didn't do much with Quasar, prefering other brands that offered
better margins and more available parts. One of the competitors
complained that they had to cannibalize boards out of new display TV
sets in order to fix other sets.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jon Elson]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

We didn't do much with Quasar, prefering other brands that offered
better margins and more available parts. One of the competitors
complained that they had to cannibalize boards out of new display TV
sets in order to fix other sets.


What a catastrophe! The very first generation of Germanium transistors

were fairly reliable, but by the mid 60's when they went to silicon
epitaxial transistors with glass passivation, things should have been
VERY reliable. Discrete transistor computers with thousands of transistors
are still running in museums and such. So, Motorola must have done
something really wrong to make it so bad. Maybe poorly made PC boards
and crummy tin connectors were a lot of the problem.

Jon

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:47:47 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Not many, if any, I think. I think the HV rectifier and horizontal
output stages were still served by tubes fairly late, but those sets
were mostly "transistorized", I think. Cross-posted to
sci.electronics.repair- I'm sure someone remembers the whole range, if
MT here doesn't.

Oh yes, I remember those nightmares. The Quasar was all transistor
except for the CRT. The HOT was a transistor.

That was second generation Quasar. First generation used a 3 volt
Vacuum tube HV recitifer. They used the same base chassis, with a
different flyback, and MOST of the modules were interchangable, but not
all of them.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:47:47 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:21:29 -0500, the renowned Jon Elson
elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:


Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer" were pretty
amusing. Talk about turning a bug into a feature.
Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

Not many, if any, I think. I think the HV rectifier and horizontal
output stages were still served by tubes fairly late, but those sets
were mostly "transistorized", I think. Cross-posted to
sci.electronics.repair- I'm sure someone remembers the whole range, if
MT here doesn't.

I'm not sure how relevant that is today.

Jon

Goes to show how bad reputation can follow you around, even after the
responsible designers and managers are long dead or retired. There's
some justification for it too, as corporate culture has momentum.

Quasar was sold to Matsushita (which most people in the world know
from their brands such as Panasonic and National) in 1974!

And Matsushita became Panasonic a decade or so ago.

 

[John-Del]

On May 21, 1:26 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

The problem was that Motorola was trying to follow the RCA example of
forcing the independent service shops out of business by controlling
their access to parts.  At first, one had to be "authorized" which
simply meant going through an ordeal process and purchasing an
unreasonable amount of spare parts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Jeff. I recall the RCA had a
unique warranty on the XL100s that allowed the warranty to be serviced
by ANY repair company authorized or not, at least initially (1971 or
so). Later on they went back to authorized service centers, but we
NEVER had trouble getting parts or service. RCA always had excellent
schematics and tech support right up until RCA's demise. I know a lot
of service shops hated RCA because they were among the first to do
away with modules and require component level repair, including smds.

John

 

[John-Del]

On May 21, 9:47 am, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:21:29 -0500, the renowned Jon Elson

Not many, if any, I think. I think the HV rectifier and horizontal
output stages were still served by tubes fairly late, but those sets
were mostly "transistorized", I think.

My recollection (and I'm pretty sure about it) is the very first
Quasars were 100% SS, including the HV rectifier. Shortly after, they
went back to a tube rectifier for a while before going completely
solid state again when the improved the HV semi components.

John

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:43:58 -0700 (PDT), John-Del <ohger1s@aol.com>
wrote:

On May 21, 1:26 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:


The problem was that Motorola was trying to follow the RCA example of
forcing the independent service shops out of business by controlling
their access to parts.  At first, one had to be "authorized" which
simply meant going through an ordeal process and purchasing an
unreasonable amount of spare parts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Jeff. I recall the RCA had a
unique warranty on the XL100s that allowed the warranty to be serviced
by ANY repair company authorized or not, at least initially (1971 or
so).

My experience with this was in about 1964 through 1967. I was going
High Skool and college while working part time at a local repair shop.
We were authorized to do warranty work for Akai, Roberts, Craig,
Concord, Sony, and some others that I can't recall. However, we were
not authorized for RCA or Motorola. It would have cost too much for a
small shop.

I don't recall such a liberal warranty arrangement. At the time, RCA
was again reorganizing its repair network and was doing its best to
kill off the small repair shops. They may have changed their tune
later, but since I was on the bench, and not in the office, I didn't
know exactly what was happening. All I heard were complaints by the
owners about RCA and Motorola.

Both RCA and Motorola had the same strategy. If the service shop
wanted the profitable out of warranty business, it had to also take
the not so profitable in warranty business. I vaguely recall that I
could take about 1.5 hrs per TV maximum (including unboxing and
reboxing) after which the shop loses money.

Later on they went back to authorized service centers, but we
NEVER had trouble getting parts or service.

I vaguely recall that the move to control service through authorized
service centers started in about 1969. I was off doing other things
by then and wasn't paying much attention to TV repair politics.

RCA always had excellent
schematics and tech support right up until RCA's demise.

Agreed. In a later job, I repaired and installed a few RCA Carfone
and Super Carfone (mostly 500 and 700) mutations. They were good
radios for their day, but the equivalent GE PreProg and Progress Line
and Motorola T43/T44 radios were better. RCA had the amazing ability
to design mobile radios that didn't fit well into vehicles. I'm not
sure how they managed that.

As I recall, GE, Motorola, and RCA documentation were great and far
better than what I see today. I could have done without the gigantic
foldout schematics, but that was the fashion of the day in schematics
and I was not in a position to ask for something that would actually
fit on my bench.

For some reason, I don't recall the condition of RCA TV schematics and
documentation. I did use quite a bit from Sams Photofact, but I don't
think that was needed for RCA or Motorola. I do recall complaining
about the RCA schematics not matching the shipped products, and was
soon blessed with a call from someone at RCA offering to fix the
discrepancies. I don't recall if anything ever changed as I didn't
stick around long enough to find out.

I know a lot
of service shops hated RCA because they were among the first to do
away with modules and require component level repair, including smds.

I don't recall that. Wasn't it the other way around? I thought RCA
went to modules and discouraged component replacements, but my memory
is rather foggy on that. I do recall that Motorola Quasar went from
components to module replacement which dramatically raised the cost of
replacement board and parts inventory.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogdotyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:19:34 -0700, the renowned "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer"
were pretty amusing. Talk about turning a bug into a feature.

Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

The "Quasar" models were transistor sets (circa 1964, I believe). I remember
a trade journal remarking that Motorola had gotten all-transistor color TV
to market two years before it was anticipated.

The "works in a drawer" were intended to simplify service. The technician
simply swapped boards (assuming the problem wasn't something not on the
boards). Motorola's goal was to keep track of what failed, and gradually
improve the boards' reliability.

Of course, a system of individual boards is inherently more-expensive than
"works on A board", not to mention the need to standardize signal levels and
power voltages. It was economically doomed from the start. But it was a good
idea.

The proof of this is that we now repair equipment the same way -- we simply
replace "everything", either by tossing out the single over-populated
circuit board, or the product altogether.

Most industrial products (and automotive, and computer, and appliance)
are still repaired like the Quasar sets- replacement at the module
level, followed by rebuilding (maybe) or discarding (often) the bad
module.

remember the zenith modules and exchange depots?

 

[spamtrap1888]

On May 21, 6:47 am, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:21:29 -0500, the renowned Jon Elson

el...@pico-systems.com> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

Those horribly unreliable TVs with "the works in a drawer" were pretty
amusing.  Talk about turning a bug into a feature.
Ahh, that was at least 40 years ago, and used vacuum tubes!

"The works in a drawer, and the drawer in the shop."

Goes to show how bad reputation can follow you around, even after the
responsible designers and managers are long dead or retired. There's
some justification for it too, as corporate culture has momentum.

Quasar was sold to Matsushita (which most people in the world know
from their brands such as Panasonic and National) in 1974!

Which promptly put all "the works" on one pc board.

A friend worked there at the time of the takeover. Interestingly, he
said the first to be laidoff were the Japanese-Americans -- apparently
people who looked Japanese but acted American unsettled the people
from Matsushita. He hung on as long as he could but Panasonic finally
laid everyone off.

At that time, Zenith was suing the Japanese for dumping TVs at less
than cost in the US. But apparently the US government had a conscious
policy of yielding the US consumer electronics business to Japan, in
order to keep them a happy ally. Thus the companies that had made
Chicago a world center of consumer electronics: Motorola, National
Video, Warwick, Wells-Gardner, Zenith and Rauland, and Admiral, all
eventually were pushed out of the business. Some were bought by far
Eastern companies like Sanyo and Lucky-Goldstar.

 

[John-Del]

On May 21, 9:37 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

I don't recall such a liberal warranty arrangement.  At the time, RCA
was again reorganizing its repair network and was doing its best to
kill off the small repair shops.  They may have changed their tune
later, but since I was on the bench, and not in the office, I didn't
know exactly what was happening.  All I heard were complaints by the
owners about RCA and Motorola.

The policy was introduced with the first XL100s, which were modular
designs. I don't know for how long they did this, but i know I have
an old Electronic Servicing kicking around somewhere that had an ad
that included that strange warranty. I'll see if I can find it, scan
it, and get you a copy. Back when the first SS TVs were introduced,
TV techs were terrified of transistors, and having most active
components on modules took some of the fear away. It also helped
allay the fears of consumers of this new technology. Lots of TV
owners back then would pull their own tubes, bring them to a local
dealer to test, and replace many of them. Of course, modules add
cost, complexity, and reduce reliability, so manufacturers did away
with modules when they could.

I know a lot
of service shops hated RCA because they were among the first to do
away with modules and require component level repair, including smds.

I don't recall that.  Wasn't it the other way around?  I thought RCA
went to modules and discouraged component replacements, but my memory
is rather foggy on that.  I do recall that Motorola Quasar went from
components to module replacement which dramatically raised the cost of
replacement board and parts inventory.

RCAs first transistor color TV was the "Trans Vista" line that
predated the XL100 by a couple of years (68-70?). The Trans Vista
was nearly identical to the XL100 electrically (including the
sophisticated SCR sweep), but was physically laid out like a CTC39X;
no modules at all. It was a lot like a 39X without tubes (although
the first year used a tube HV rect, second year a tripler). These TVs
were expensive and in limited quantity. We sold a handful and they
were bullet proof, unlike earlier tube RCAs that drove us nuts
(flybacks burning up in a few hours after delivery was not uncommon) I
suspect that once RCA saw the Trans Vistas were trouble free (and they
were), they introduced the XL100 modular TV with a big advertising
budget. The only controversy I can remember about the first XL100 is
that a few of their modules were ceramic, surface mount, and
encapsulated. The three kine outputs and the audio amp are the ones I
can remember. Some speculated that RCA was trying to keep techs from
repairing the modules, but I suspect it was more about production cost
and reliability. Soon after, those boards were redesigned to be
conventional phenolic with leaded components, and were fully
compatible front and back.


Later, RCA was the first domestic to go to a unitized chassis doing
away with all modules and even transistor sockets, joining the imports
in the way TVs were made. I remember a lot of guys at service seminars
bitching about having to unsolder transistors to check them (they had
to learn how to check them with a meter and scope in a hurry). I
always had a bit of a soft spot for this company, and I hope Jack
Welch burns in hell for what he did to them.

John

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
<spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

Which promptly put all "the works" on one pc board.

At the time, before robotic components and board handling, if you cut
a board in half, it would double the price. Each board had to carry
its own cost burden of stuffing, handling, soldering, testing,
inventory, shipping, etc, not to mention the interconnect costs. It
was a huge cost savings to put everything on a single board, with one
exception. If the yield was lousy and the board did not have
sufficient test points and documentation to repair, then all the cost
savings went into the dumpster.

At that time, Zenith was suing the Japanese for dumping TVs at less
than cost in the US.

Zenith was an oddity. While everyone else was promoting the benefits
of printed circuit boards, Zenith was proclaiming the superiority of
their "hand wired" chassis.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_Electronics#Hand_Wired_Chassis>

But apparently the US government had a conscious
policy of yielding the US consumer electronics business to Japan, in
order to keep them a happy ally.

Yep. I don't know the details, but I was told that the import duties
and tax laws of late 1960's were structured to make it cheaper to
build a product in Japan, than in the USA. Also, Japan's import
duties made it prohibitively expensive to import consumer products
into Japan.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

 

[josephkk]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:47:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

But apparently the US government had a conscious
policy of yielding the US consumer electronics business to Japan, in
order to keep them a happy ally.

Yep. I don't know the details, but I was told that the import duties
and tax laws of late 1960's were structured to make it cheaper to
build a product in Japan, than in the USA. Also, Japan's import
duties made it prohibitively expensive to import consumer products
into Japan.

Gosh, this really sounds like US and China today, except with China it is
almost all labor containing products.

?-)

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:47:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote:

Which promptly put all "the works" on one pc board.

At the time, before robotic components and board handling, if you cut
a board in half, it would double the price. Each board had to carry
its own cost burden of stuffing, handling, soldering, testing,
inventory, shipping, etc, not to mention the interconnect costs. It
was a huge cost savings to put everything on a single board, with one
exception. If the yield was lousy and the board did not have
sufficient test points and documentation to repair, then all the cost
savings went into the dumpster.

At that time, Zenith was suing the Japanese for dumping TVs at less
than cost in the US.

Zenith was an oddity. While everyone else was promoting the benefits
of printed circuit boards, Zenith was proclaiming the superiority of
their "hand wired" chassis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_Electronics#Hand_Wired_Chassis

But apparently the US government had a conscious
policy of yielding the US consumer electronics business to Japan, in
order to keep them a happy ally.

Yep. I don't know the details, but I was told that the import duties
and tax laws of late 1960's were structured to make it cheaper to
build a product in Japan, than in the USA. Also, Japan's import
duties made it prohibitively expensive to import consumer products
into Japan.

....and we *still* haven't learned that lesson.

 

[Les Cargill]

josephkk wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:47:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:


But apparently the US government had a conscious
policy of yielding the US consumer electronics business to Japan, in
order to keep them a happy ally.

Yep. I don't know the details, but I was told that the import duties
and tax laws of late 1960's were structured to make it cheaper to
build a product in Japan, than in the USA. Also, Japan's import
duties made it prohibitively expensive to import consumer products
into Japan.

Gosh, this really sounds like US and China today, except with China it is
almost all labor containing products.

?-)

There's a lot in parallel. Remember - just about everything in China has
the aspect of a Potemkin village. They manage to do well because they
throw a *lot* of hands at it, and adapt process to meet requirements
at a deep level. The country's run by engineers, and they know how
to set and fill metrics. By "engineers", I mean some real Dilberts,
too.

http://blurt-online.com/blogs/author/50/

"After the meeting at which Jobs expressed his dissatisfaction, one of
his execs booked a flight to China, where he knew there was a factory
that could mobilize three thousand workers on a moments notice, by
which I mean, waking them up in their dorm beds, putting them on the
production line, and training them to cut the glass for the iPhone
screen."

That's a a synopsis of a lot of articles form reputable sources.
I have to wonder how important the latencies involved really are?
Why in the world would another week before rollout make any difference?

I don't mean "Potemkin village" as a perjorative; they're trying
to figure it out as best they can. But they completely seem to be
failing at developing a consumer culture much. Maybe that is good;
I don't know.

but eventually the prices are gonna equalize in China. Then we'll
see.

It can also be considered to be a lot like America, in the period
before the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. There are a lot of ways
to do this sort of thing...

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:47:39 -0700, Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
snip

...and we *still* haven't learned that lesson.

Seriously; read Peter Drucker. He set them on that
path, and one thing Japanese culture is good at is
preserving that kind of idea over long spans of time.

There is a Nova about the making of a katana, and it's
engrossing and somewhat terrifying at the same time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/samurai/swor-nf.html

The level of commitment to the process seems to pretty
much be the point of the object itself. The closest I
can get in Western culture is something like Mount Rushmore
or a cathedral like Chartres.

The piece gives of the aroma of "industrial process as
religious devotional." I don't get the sense that any
of it is actually written down.

--
Les Cargill